Different definitions of CpG island methylator phenotype and outcomes of colorectal cancer: a systematic review

• Published in: Clinical epigenetics Vol. 8; no. 25; p. 25
• Main Authors: Jia, Min, Gao, Xu, Zhang, Yan, Hoffmeister, Michael, Brenner, Hermann
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Germany BioMed Central Ltd 02.03.2016; BioMed Central
• Subjects: Analysis; Cancer; Cancer patients; Chemotherapy; Colorectal cancer; Colorectal Neoplasms - diagnosis; Colorectal Neoplasms - genetics; Confidence intervals; CpG Islands - genetics; DNA Methylation; Genetic aspects; Genotype & phenotype; Humans; Islands; Laboratories; Medical prognosis; Methylation; Mortality; Multivariate analysis; Phenotype; Prognosis; Review; Studies; Surgery; Chemotherapy; CpG island methylator phenotype; Prognosis; Colorectal cancer
• ISSN: 1868-7075; 1868-7083; 1868-7083; 1868-7075
• DOI: 10.1186/s13148-016-0191-8

Contradictory results were reported for the prognostic role of CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP) among colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. Differences in the definitions of CIMP were the most common explanation for these discrepancies. The aim of this systematic review was to give an overview of the published studies on CRC prognosis according to the different definitions of CIMP. A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE and ISI Web of Science for articles published until 3 April 2015. Data extraction included information about the study population, the definition of CIMP, and investigated outcomes. Thirty-six studies were included in this systematic review. Among them, 30 studies reported the association of CIMP and CRC prognosis and 11 studies reported the association of CIMP with survival after CRC therapy. Overall, 16 different definitions of CIMP were identified. The majority of studies reported a poorer prognosis for patients with CIMP-positive (CIMP+)/CIMP-high (CIMP-H) CRC than with CIMP-negative (CIMP-)/CIMP-low (CIMP-L) CRC. Inconsistent results or varying effect strengths could not be explained by different CIMP definitions used. No consistent variation in response to specific therapies according to CIMP status was found. Comparative analyses of different CIMP panels in the same large study populations are needed to further clarify the role of CIMP definitions and to find out how methylation information can best be used to predict CRC prognosis and response to specific CRC therapies.